FP6-IST-507336 PrestoSpace 1 Cost Models and Business Cases (for Audiovisual Curation and...

FP6-IST-507336 PrestoSpace 1

Cost Models and Business Cases

(for Audiovisual Curation and Preservation)

13 May 2008

Matthew Addis, IT Innovation Centre

Alain PERRIER


Contents

Introduction and Terminology Approach to Making a Business Case

Value, Cost, Uncertainty Cost Models

Digitisation, Storage, Access Calculators, Websites, Reports, Databases

Business Models Case study on sustainability


Introduction

IT Innovation is an applied research centre in Southampton

15 years of collaborative R&D to produce innovation software systems

10 years in cultural heritage and creative industries

Audiovisual preservation, restoration, search and retrieval, collaborative resource sharing

Museums, libraries, archives, post houses, studios, technology vendors


Terminology

Curation Identifying, selecting, acquiring, preserving and

making accessible AV content Preservation

The part of curation concerned with maintaining the ability to use AV content

Cost model Allows the cost of a preservation project to be

estimated in advance Business case

The justification, costs and risks associated with a preservation project


Making a business case


Business Case

Costs Supposedly the easy bit!

Benefits ‘Outcomes’ and ‘Impact’ – value creation But how do you do this for intangibles?

Uncertainties Nothing is guaranteed Likelihood of benefits Possible problems Need to show good management


Business Case

Communication People responsible for archive People who hold the purse strings Shouldn’t be ‘us against them’

Different worlds Need to use a common language and tools

Understand who the case is being made to What are their objectives? What is their ‘risk appetite’? How are they measured?


Business Case


Value: eSpida

Framework for articulating and communicating intangible value in project proposals and business cases

Positions proposals in context of strategic objectives

Outcome Scorecards to structure presentation and assessment of value

http://www.gla.ac.uk/espida/


Value: eSpida


Outcome Scorecards

Customer Satisfaction, awareness (e.g. ‘Beyond the Rocks), improved

services, higher quality content, brand promotion, public good Business Process

Faster access, more flexible to change Automation, e.g. cataloguing [40% of costs,ORF]

Innovation New materials, new uses, new users, new processes, staff

development, working conditions Financial

Licensing and sales, cost savings, donations, further investment


Outcome Scorecards

Objectives targeted Outcomes (positive and negative) Category (primary, secondary, ...) Metrics Likelihood Timescale Duration

Not always easy for intangibles where value is not realised for some time and hard to measure


Museum Example


PrestoSpace ‘The Case for Investment in Digital Archives’

Topics Non-use value and contingent valuation Public Value Market Failures Business Case

Case studies Beelden voor de Toekomst - Images for the Future The Royal Theatre in Copenhagen BBC Public Value The British Library – ‘Measuring Our Value’


Curation Lifecycle

http://www.dcc.ac.uk/docs/publications/DCCLifecycle.pdf


Curation Lifecycle

Curation is an ongoing activity Highlights the need to consider sustainability

All stages in the lifecycle have costs People, facilities, equipment, time

Lifecycle models provide structure Avoids missing bits out

Helps with justification Shows you’ve followed a recognised approach


Trusted Repositories

A Trusted Repository provides reliable long-term access to managed resources to its community now and in the future

Easy to claim, much harder to deliver Use Audit Checklists

Structured way to determine whether a repository is trustworthy

List of processes, policies, plans that should be put in place


TRAC cchttp://www.crl.edu/PDF/trac.pdf


Risk Management

Risk management is the identification and treatment of risks

Risk is the likelihood of an incident along with the business consequences (positive or negative)

Activity is something that the organisation does Asset is something of value to the organisation Threat is the cause of the incident Vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited

Preservation is a risk management problem


Example threats and risks

Technical obsolescence, e.g. formats and players Hardware failures, e.g. digital storage systems Loss of staff, e.g. skilled transfer operators Insufficient budget, e.g. digitisation too expensive Accidental loss, e.g. human error during QC Stakeholders, e.g. preservation no longer a priority Underestimation of resources or effort Fire, flood, meteors, aliens…


Example consequences

Corruption or loss of AV content Interruption to services Inefficiencies and increased costs Corner cutting and increased risks Failure to meet legal obligations Loss of reputation or loss of customers


What to do about these risks

Avoidance (elimination) Reduction (mitigation) Retention (acceptance) Transfer (buy insurance, outsource)

Risks exist at all stages of the lifecycle Managing these has an associated cost


Risk Management Process


Cost and Risk

Where are the risks? Consider all stages of the lifecycle

What is the organisation’s risk tolerance? E.g. what losses are acceptable in the context of

what the organisation wants to achieve Determine the cost of managing risks

What is needed to ensure risks remain at this level, e.g. multiple copies in different locations

Use risk assessment frameworks DRAMBORA


DRAMBORA

Top down risk assessment process

Context, objectives, policies

Activities, assets, owners

Risks, treatment, management

http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/


Ready-made list of 78 risks in different groups (preservation, financial, staff etc) with a template for each.

Step-by-step process with guidelines on how much effort is required for each step


Summary of Approach Identify the reasons for the project (why)

What are the objectives – you and the funder Where does the value come from

Analyse the curation lifecycle (how) Identify the activities and resources needed Identify the risks and their management Estimate the costs

Build a business case Use lifecycles, risk assessment, audit criteria,

outcome scorecards as starting points


Cost models for digitisation(also applies to migration of already digital content)


Audio Visual Archives

PrestoSpace estimate: 6M hrs across 20 major European archives UNESCO estimate: 200M hrs of film and video in total


1960 1970 1980 1990

2” Quad Videotape

1” C Format Videotape

U-MATIC Videotape

BETA

Reversal Film

Eastman & B/W Film

Separate Magnetic Sound Track TV Progs

Sound - Shellac & Vinyl Discs

1950


Approx 1/3 of material has deterioration Approx 1/4 of material cannot be released as it is too easily damaged


At least 2/3 of the material cannot be easily used


Inputs to cost modelling

What have I got? How much of it do I have? How should I digitise it? What should I digitise it to? What problems will I face?


What have I got?

Websites Deliverables Handbooks Surveys


PrestoSpace media database

http://prestospace.it-innovation.soton.ac.uk/


How much have I got?

PrestoSpace storage calculator

Inputs Type and quantity of

media Digitisation quality

Outputs Volume of digital

storage required

http://digitalpreservation.ssl.co.uk/


How should I digitise it?http://www.prestospace.org/project/public.en.html


What should I digitise it to?

http://www.tape-online.net/

Issues include: Resolution Compression Proprietary

formats Keep content

coding separate from physical carrier

Longevity


What problems can occur?

I’ll come back to this…


Critical issues when planning preservation projects

How much will it cost? Money How long will it take? Time How much might be lost? Risk What should be done first? Priority What process should be used?

Efficiency


What large broadcast archives do

Digitise in order to maintain ability to use content Well developed approach

Processes for planning and costing Production-line style workflows Professional level of quality

Good coverage of the issues Formats and problems Budget constraints Archive, access and delivery

Wealth of experience to share


Planning process

Work have I got? Technical map → cost and capacity Content map → value

What are the priorities? Preservation strategy

Define the preservation workflow Efficient execution

Year-on-year planning and review What, when, where, how, who etc.


Mapping

Technical Formats and carriers Duplicates and unique copies Condition Age (made, used, reused) Volume (items and hours) Equipment and operators

Content Value, rights, cataloguing Users and needs (current, future)


Priorities and strategy

Value Cultural, commercial, legal

Technical Decay, obsolescence

Access Better, faster, cheaper

Priority

Genre

UsageContent

Carrier

Condition

Most ‘valuable’ first Worst condition first Obsolete carriers first Best condition first

Not always easy “I need to view it to

know what’s on it”


Preservation Workflow

Tria

ge

B1 B2

A1 A2 A3

Ana

log

ue A

rchi

ve

Inge

st

Dig

ital A

rchi

ve

Sel

ectio

nRules andPriorities

KnowledgeBase

Preservation Chains

Exception Handling

Migration


Efficiency is the name of the game

Triage Assessment of items Condition, cataloguing Chemical markers, visual inspection

Preservation chains Automated, manual, specialist Minimise ‘exceptions’ Issue is efficiency, not sacrificing quality

Digital archiving Management, migration, media


Problems encountered during transfer

Obsolete and hard to obtain playback equipment Lack of skills and the need for specialised equipment Chemical decay of the media Dirt, dust, mould or other forms of contamination Wear, tear and other forms of damage to the media Poor quality signal in the original recording Difficulty in identifying the content, e.g. no

cataloguing Applies to digital as well as analogue media


How much will be problematic?

General statistics [Presto] 1/3 has deterioration 1/4 cannot be released as it is too easily damaged 2/3 cannot be easily used

Some specific statistics available Umatic 10% [INA], Umatic 40% [BBC] 1”C 20% [BBC] Overall 20% of video (analogue and digital) [Sony] 90-95% of holdings is only 50% of costs [BBC]


What condition is it in (video)

IASA 2003


What condition is it in (video)

TAPE2005


What problems arise (video)

TAPE2005


What are the priorities (video)


What condition is it in (audio)

IASA 2003


What condition is it in (audio)

TAPE2005


What problems arise (audio)

TAPE2005


What are the priorities (audio)


What condition is it in (film)

TAPE 2005


What problems arise (film)

TAPE 2005


What are people doing?

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2" V

ideo

tape

Film S

ound

Umat

ic

1" V

ideo

D3 Vid

eo

Ektac

hrom

e

(Rev

ersa

l)

Shella

c &Viny

l

Sound

Total ArchiveFuture preservationThis 4yr CaseAlready Preserved

Sony expected customers

BBC preservation progress


It’s probably worse!

film audio video total % Equal split of 'not knowns', %

have a problem

489 676 690 1855 73 79

not known 170 62 46 278 11

not present 62 134 200 396 16 21

Total 721 872 936 2529 100 100


Format, manufacturer, batch 1 inch IVC

few available machines often tapes are ‘sticky’ very low compatibility between machines

1 inch A few available machines sticky tapes are often impossible to preserve likelihood of stickiness varies between manufacturers

1 inch B good compatibility between machines good quality machines are readily available no major problems with tape condition, except from Agfa

1 inch C generally easy to migrate


U-matic case study

Europe has over 1 million U-matic tapes

Most are between 20 and 40 years old.

Between 20% and 80% are showing obvious signs of decay or are giving the archives holding them cause for concern.

http://www.prestospace.org/


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3M

AG

FA

AM

PE

X

BA

SF

FU

JI

KO

DA

K

PY

RA

L

QU

AN

TE

GY

SO

NY

Tape manufacturer

Per

cen

tag

e o

f ta

pes

wit

h p

laya

bil

ity

pro

ble

ms

Percentage of tapes that had playability problems during transfer for different tape manufacturers.


0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Number of years spent in archive

Per

cen

tag

e o

f ta

pes

th

at a

re

pro

ble

mat

ic

Percentage of tapes causing playability problems (all brands and years) as a function of how long the tapes were been in the archive. When tapes are archived, they degrade slowly over time and cause more playability problems. Tapes degrade faster if the temperature or humidity is high.


1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 19913M 17 14 12 9 11 14 9 13 13 10 6 6 6 5 10 14AGFA -1 -1 -1 -1 43 -1 51 67 -1 -1 42 -1 60 40 14 0AMPEX -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 34 -1 14 17 20 12 9 10 8 8 0BASF -1 -1 -1 13 23 3 21 41 -1 9 11 19 14 -1 -1 -1FUJ I -1 15 -1 5 24 49 13 3 8 8 11 12 17 9 8 -1KODAK -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 20 23 17 12 3 3 -1SONY 28 21 19 18 21 23 22 26 19 13 14 14 9 10 8 4

Percentage of U-matic tapes showing at least one tape playability problem (head clogging, sticky tape, need to replay) when transferred. Based on 50,000 U-matic tapes transferred for INA by Vectracom.

Green 10% or less of tapes showed playability problems when they were transferred. Orange 10-25% of tapes showed playability problems.

Transfer projects involving tapes in this category will benefit from a triage step in the workflow and specialised transfer chains.

Red More than 25% of tapes showed playability problems. The costs of a transfer project to at least double compared with transferring tapes that are all in good condition.


ManufacturerChemical Group ID

Playability Problem Rating

AGFA AGF5 9

AGFA AGF4 6

SONY S8 4

AGFA AGF3 4

AGFA AGF2 4

SONY S7 3

SONY S6 3

AMPEX APX2 3

SONY S5 2

AMPEX APX1 1

SONY S1 1

SONY S12 1

FUJI FJ1 0

SONY S2 0

SONY S13 0


OK, so what do I do about it? Maps, samples, pilot studies

Samples need to be representative Samples may need to be large to cover all the bases OK for large archives

Flexible process Adapt as digitisation takes place Use ‘triage’ step in workflow if there are difficult items Work in partnership with service providers Frequent review and re-planning


How much will it cost (video)2004- 2006

2007-2010

Estimated volume (Hours)

340540 121080

Estimated costs (Euro)

27611500 18688500

Cost per hour (Euro)

81 154

Preservation Factories Sony 65€ per hr currently 50€ per hr projected 15€ per hr bulk discount

100,000+ Betacam SP

Presto 2000

PrestoSpace 2005


How much will it cost (audio)

Presto 2000

Audio 2004-2006

Estimated volume, in hours 113600

Estimated costs 8130000

Cost per hour (Euro) 72

PrestoSpace 2005


How much will it cost (film)

10x cost of video At least 1000€ per hour on average [Presto,

PrestoSpace] £500 per hour HD ungraded [Service Provider] Telecines/scanners aren’t cheap

£2.5M for HD telecine, digital wetgate, editing suite Recover costs over 5 years at 2hrs per day = £1000 per hour


How much will it cost (film)

2004-2006 2007-2010

Estimated volume (Hours) 28010 14950

Estimated costs (Euro) 21315000 18962000

Cost per hour (Euro) 761 1268

Presto 2000

PrestoSpace 2005


How much will it cost (restoration)?

Restoration (film/video) Service Provider 600 – 20000 €/hr

Automated: 7€ per min = 400€/hr Manual: 20-30€ per min = 1500€/hr Damaged material: 50-70€ per min = 4000€/hr


How long will it take (video)?

Transfer [BBC] 1-2 hrs per hr (1” and U-matic, good condition)

1.5x transfer 1.3x checking

3-4 hrs per hr (2”) 2-5 times longer for poor material

5x transfer 2x checking


How long will it take (audio) TC04

Acetate/lacquer discs (instantaneous) 400:1 complex transfers 15:1 average

Cylinders 16:1

¼” tape Good 2:1 Average 3:1


How long will it take (audio)?

Transfer [Austrian Phonogrammarchiv] 1-7 hours per hour (¼” tape) Assessment

Track structure Speed Equalisation Noise reduction

Cleaning and repairs Spools, Splices, Leaders Baking


How long will it take (film)?

Transfer Depends on quality (grading) As little as 90 minutes per day for a telecine suite

[Studio Hamburg] 2 days for a 2 hr film [Accent Media] 2hrs per hr condition assessment, 20-30hrs per

hour transfer, 7hrs per hour restoration and retouching [Machine Room]


How long will it take (restoration)?

Automated (hardware) Real time (Terranex, DVNR, Archangel) 1-2 hrs per hr

Manual (hardware and software) [INA] 2 hrs per hr assessment 12-15 hrs per hr video 12-15 hrs per hr audio Total of 30hrs per hr = 15 minutes per working day


How much can I get done? Never enough hours in the day!

1 year = 9000 hrs, 1 FTE = 1500hrs Video

Up to 7000 hrs per year (24x7 good media) [ORF] 800 hrs per year (skilled operators, difficult media)

Audio 2000 hrs per year (24x7 good media)

Film 400 hrs per year

Restoration 100 hrs per year


Cost per hour of work involved

Hrs work per hr of content

Cost per hr of content

Cost per hr of work

Video

good 2 100 50

difficult 10 500 50

Film

30 1500 50

Audio

4 200 50

Restoration

automated 2 400 200

manual 30 4000 133


Calculating costs Estimate number of hours of work per hour

of content Cataloguing, selection Inspection, preparation, transfer Logistics Training and maintenance

Multiply the end result by 50€ ! Useful when using service providers

Rough estimates Check point


Digitisation cost models: Summary Be well informed

Type and size of the problem Priorities and strategies Pilots, samples

Estimate total costs of each stage Sustainability issue: digital archiving Save costs through efficient workflow Put storage costs in context of transfer costs

You are very likely to have difficult media Difficult to know which items in advance Build this in, plan for loss


Cost models for digital storage


Digital archiving Technical obsolescence is rapid

Media discontinued, some backwards compatibility Continual advances in tapes, disks, robots, OS, network Different cycles for file formats and media types Large archives change storage systems as often as every 3

to 5 years A manufacturer may say that their tape lasts 30 years, but

that’s no use if the player is obsolete in 6-7 years! Migration is inevitable

Plan for it and budget for it Applies just as much to items on shelves (tapes or disks) Easier to manage using mass storage systems


LTO roadmap Backwards compatible read = 2 generations Backwards compatible write = 1 generation

2000 2004 2007


Digital archiving (cost over time)

Rapidly falling costs Media Space Bandwidth

Relatively constant costs Big bits of kit (robots, disk arrays) Major capital investment Occurs at discrete points in

archive size


Digital archive modelling (1)

Storage Solution 1 Storage Solution 2 Storage Solution 3




yr 1 - yr 3

yr 4 - yr 6

yr 7 - yr 9

yr 10


Digital archive modelling (2)

Number of items

Cos

t per

item


Digital storage costs

Managed storage 10x the cost of the raw media [BBC] Outsourced [MovingMedia]

1TB = £5000 per year = £5 per GB 1TB = £12000 per year, 2 sites + networking

Tape is mostly cheaper than disk But only above a certain threshold (moving) USB → NAS → Tape Tape is 3rd of the cost of disk for a large archive As low as 5p/GB media (LTO3 800GB compressed)


TCO storage comparisonshttp://www.plasmon.com/


Amazon S3

Storage$0.18 per GB-Month of storage used

Data Transfer$0.100 per GB - all data transfer in

$0.170 per GB - first 10 TB / month data transfer out$0.130 per GB - next 40 TB / month data transfer out$0.110 per GB - next 100 TB / month data transfer out$0.100 per GB - data transfer out / month over 150 TB

Requests$0.012 per 1,000 PUT, POST, or LIST requests$0.012 per 10,000 GET and all other requests*

40TB of storage = $86,000 per year + $4000 transfer in (approx $260,000 for 3 years)

http://aws.amazon.com/s3


Storage costs (video)

MBit/s Format GB/hr Annual cost of managed storage £/hr

Web browsing

1 MPEG1 0.5 0.75*

General purpose delivery

8 MPEG2 4 2

Master 80 Lossless 40 20

* Doesn’t include network costsBased on 5p/GB media x 10


Storage costs (film)

4k scanner (4096 x 3112) 50 MByte per frame 24 fps Uncompressed 4TB per hour (8 GBit/s!) Lossless compression 1.5TB per hour £1000 per hour! Put master in the freezer, transfer to new film stock Use compression for an access copy


Solutions

So many choices! Tape or disk (cost v.s. access) Shelves or mass storage (cost v.s. manageability) File formats, codecs, bit rates (cost v.s. quality v.s. use) Backup and disaster recovery (cost v.s. risk) Safety (cost v.s. permanence)

2 copies 2 technologies 2 location


Detailed digital storage cost models

Active archives means integration into the business Content in a variety of forms, from a variety of sources A wide range of ‘users’ and applications Mix of technologies (disk, tape, shelves etc.) From short term ‘caching’ to long term preservation Mix of standard and proprietary data formats Use of assets ranges from every day to almost never

Simulation and modelling

Choices and configuration

Execution and management

Monitoring and reporting

Evolution and refinement


Facets Knowing what you need (capacity planning)

Capturing workloads and longer term trends Access patterns, peaks loads, bottlenecks Upgrades, migration, consolidation Safety and longevity of assets

Choosing the best approach (optimisation) TCO (space, kit, people, power, cooling, environmental impact) Accessibility, safety, longevity, quality, volume Best use of emerging breed of intelligent storage technologies Policies and rules (ingest, access, retention, security, safety)

Running the archive (deployment and operation) Outsourced archive hosting Archives embedded in supply chains Direct use by different business units Need for well defined policies, QoS, SLAs Managing use of the archive (putting stuff in, getting stuff out) Monitoring, reporting, auditing


Library

AB

C

E

Content Processing

Collection and Digital

Asset Managment

Intelligent HSM

Content Storage Management

Archive Management

Working Archive

Deep Archive

Ste

war

dshi

p P

rogr

amm

e

Change in layout and encoding

Optimised for safety and longeivity

Optimised for accessibility and

business integration

Externalised content

Workflows, bottlenecks, optimal location of

processing and storage, archive access across

organisational boundaries

Sho

rt to

med

ium

te

rmLo

ng te

rm

Migration planning, tipping points, graceful

degradation, ‘safe’ formats, OAIS

D


Separation of concerns

Map application domain to storage and access requirements E.g. from number of hours of news footage to number of

TB of storage and the bandwidth needed for access Ingest, Access, Retention

Simple profiles Aggregate over genres/groups/collections

Communication framework Archive managers IT specialists Service providers


Collections of assets


Ingest Profile


Retention Schedule


Access Profile


Storage Needs


Bandwidth Needs


Storage Solution


Combined costs

Transfer Up front, one off (hopefully!) Expensive (consumer and professional media) No signs of getting lower, maybe the reverse

Digital Storage Costs are falling rapidly – storage and access Need to budget for migration

Transfer cost is 5x annual storage costs and rising Focus on minimising transfer costs Mapping, workflow, service providers

Still not the whole story Cataloguing [40%,ORF], rights clearance, end-user

system


Digitisation and Storage Calculator

Inputs Number of items to digitise Media type and condition Cost of transfer per item Digitisation quality and usage Basic storage costs

Outputs Total cost of transfer and managed storage


In-house or outsource? Transfer

Preparation, repairs and specialist treatment, digitisation Storage

Co-location facilities Fully managed storage Access or deep archiving

Changes the logistics, not the process Inventory, transport, quality control

Total cost for each stage People, training, management Equipment, maintenance, support Space, heat, light


Using service providers SLAs

Quality, legal, transport, confidentiality, location, subcontracting, price, standards, insurance

Costs ITT, SLA, inventory, transport, storage containers (tape and film),

disposal Quality control, monitoring, problem handling, project and

relationship management ‘Management overhead’ adds 15% to the costs [BBC]

Multiple service providers Load balancing to achieve throughput Eggs in many baskets Lowers costs, e.g. by soaking up cheap ‘off peak’ time


Business Case: Summary Consider all the angles

Value, Costs, Uncertainties Create a balanced business case and discuss with funders

Base cost models on the curation lifecycle Estimate total costs of each stage Consider sustainability of the digital archive Save costs through efficient workflows Put storage and access costs in context of transfer costs

You are very likely to have difficult media Hard to know which items in advance Build this uncertainty into the plan and expect some loss


Business models and sustainability


eCHASE

EU supported eContent project Business models and

technologies to enable public-private partnerships Cultural Heritage Content Education and Publishing

www.echase.org


Commercial exploitation of cultural content

Minefield of issues Perception of who is exploiting who Rights and licensing Conflicting interests

Simple eBusiness models often fail E.g. put it all online with a shopping basket

Complex business models aren’t easy either! AMICO, ArtStor, SCRAN, HIP, Pathe


Art Museum Image Consortium Database of fine art images for use in education 35 providers

125,000 images $100,000 fees 500 new items per contributor each year

AMICO clears rights (30% of budget) Low cost use in education

400 subscribing institutions, $1.25M fees 0.10$ per secondary school student 5 main distributors

Overall was just about self-sufficient after 5 years!


Observations on access, use, value and revenues

Beware a skewed view of value based on usage 90% of accesses are digital archive, but only 30% of content [INA] Usage depends on being able to find and playback content Unused content can be more valuable!

Increased accessibility doesn’t always mean increased use Online allows easier exploration and inspection Better matches, but not necessarily more usage But costs can be much lower, services are better

Online access doesn’t mean online sales Unless you are large (critical mass, brand, footprint) But can mean increase in traditional sales Need aggregation, contextualisation, localisation, distribution [eCHASE]

Online public access can mean a bigger audience 10,000 hrs generated 3 million hits per day [INA] 3,000 hrs generated 1 million hits per month (1000x increase) [Pathe]


Disruptive technologies


European Digital Library Timescales

Start with library integration in 2006 2 million items of multimedia content by 2008 6+ million items of multimedia content by 2010

Rights Fair use, safe harbour, orphan works, legal deposit,

digital public ‘lending’ library, creative commons Digitisation

Co funded by commission, digitisation centres Standardisation

Metadata, interoperability Public-private partnerships

Identified as a key area for i2010 Lots of discussion in responses to online consultation


Providing value to content holders

Content more accessible Additional revenue from commercial licensing Information on who is using their content Content standardisation, linking, annotation,

and translation Creating content products New tools for search and retrieval (e.g. CBIR) New ways to expose content (e.g. SRW, OAI)


Providing value to content users Make content from multiple sources easy to use Thematic views

E.g. “Heart of Europe”, and “Wandering Borders” Localisation

E.g. Czech education Context

Editorial narratives Linking to reference material

Sharing of annotations, resources and tools Integration of local and remote content


eCHASE model

Multimedia Mobile

ReferenceSite

Google

Archive

Museum

University

SchoolLibrary

Derivative ProductBusines

sCommercialBrokerage

Educational Portal

Public Portal

Public

Rev

enu

esC

on

tent

Service andproduct

advertisers

Pu

blic

Acc

ess,

Pro

mo

tion

Pro

fess

iona

ls,

Edu

catio

nC

omm

erci

al,

Pri

vate

Mis

sion

Com

mer

cia

l

Private User

Publisher


eCHASE workflow

Alinari

Getty

Search, Navigate,Visualise

Database

ImportToolsV&A

AuthoringTools

-----------------------

BookPublisher

EducationDistributors

Content Products

Dreamweaver,Flash,XML

ORF

Google

Web site

Editor, author,designer

SubjectExpert

Commercial Transactions,Content transfers

Content Providers

Content Users

System administrators and suppliersCurators, catalogers

Applicationdevelopers

Knowledge engineersDatabase administrators


Strategy Address both cultural and commercial value Simple model for rights and sales

Single license for all content Subscription, not pay-per-item or pay-per-use

Value chain that works for all participants Content providers Content users Aggregators, distributors, intermediaries

Adding value is more than putting content online


The Heart Of Europe A modern database history of Europe from the vantage point

of New European Nations Subscription or flat license model for educational applications Understandable, sustainable, desirable, unique, affordable

and portable

Content Product


Financial Forecasts

Revenue in € 2006 2007 2008 2009

Czech Republic - 36.000 43.000 50.000

Austria - 36.000 43.000 50.000

Poland - 36.000 43.000 50.000

total - 108.000 129.000 150.000

Cost in € 2006 2007 2008 2009

Management - 14.500 14.500 14.500

Development - 14.500 14.500 14.500

Travel - 14.500 14.500 14.500

Total - 43.500 43.500 43.500


Summary Clear demand for the ‘content products’ we

began to produce Combined cultural and commercial value But, the numbers just didn’t add up Business wasn’t not viable Difficult to make eCHASE self-sustaining Interest dissipated, partners have moved on…

There can be a big gap between short-term pilot projects and long-term sustainable services

FP6-IST-507336 PrestoSpace 1 Cost Models and Business Cases (for Audiovisual Curation and...

Documents

Transcript of FP6-IST-507336 PrestoSpace 1 Cost Models and Business Cases (for Audiovisual Curation and...